<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Can you define "common pool". Your
comments are interesting... (sorry for jumping in the middle of
the discussion). : )<br>
<br>
On 4/16/13 8:25 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">Parminder:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">Are you again floating the
discredited and theoretically inaccurate notion that
something called “the Internet” is a “commons” and “public
good?” These claims are just wrong, and have been dealt with
years ago. If interested I can direct you to the scientific
literature on this.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">The Internet _<i>standards</i>_ are
open and non-proprietary, and thus can accurately be called
the basis of a commons and a public good. Internet services,
web sites, etc. are private goods; they are both rival in
consumption and excludable. Internet access facilities are
private goods. There is no meaningful debate about this;
either you understand the definition of public goods and
commons and the economic characteristics of these resources
or you don’t. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">Our research on IP addressing
discusses the status of IP addresses as common pool
resources. Likewise, other work addresses the status of
domain names. Both IP addresses and domain names are private
goods but may be regulated in a common pool fashion, or not,
depending on what works best. I presume you know what common
pool governance is.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D">It seems to make many people feel
good to claim that certain things are commons or public
goods. There seems to be no other reason why the claim is so
persistent, despite being completely out of line with facts
and the economic realities of internet resources. But
wishing doesn’t make it so, and false application of
concepts can only lead to disastrous policy. These are
precise terms with important policy implications. One should
respect facts and the basic scientific principles of
political economy and derive public policy from that, not
the other way around.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>parminder<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, April 15, 2013 12:51 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [governance] Internet as a commons/
public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
Anriette/ All<br>
<br>
I find this posting, and later ones in the thread very
interesting. Indeed a good amount of confusion in this
group's internal interactions owe to the fact that while
we have some broad process rules, we have very little in
terms of substance that we can take as a starting point
for our political/ advocacy work. Recognising the Internet
as a commons/ public good, and seeking that its basic
governance principles flow from such a basic understanding
of the Internet, is good and useful basic agreement to try
to reach for this group, <br>
<br>
I propose that the caucus adopts this as a/ the basic
principle for IGC's political/ advocacy work.<br>
<br>
I propose that we even go beyond and adopt a working
definition of the Internet, absence of which itself has
been identified as a major problem that renders many of
our discussions/ positions here unclear. Avri proposes the
following definition, which I find very encouraging....<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">"Internet as an emergent, and emerging,
reality consisting of hardware, protocols and software,
and human intentionality brought together by a common set
of design principles and constrained by policies fashioned
by the stakeholders."<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
I propose small modifications to it <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">"Internet as an emergent, and emerging,
reality consisting of hardware, protocols and software,
human intentionality, and a new kind of social spatiality,
brought together by a common set of design principles and
constrained by policies fashioned by due democratic
processes."<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
So what I propose for this caucus to adopt is as follows<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">"We
recognise the Internet as an emergent, and emerging,
reality consisting of hardware, protocols and software,
human intentionality, and a new kind of social spatiality,
brought together by a common set of design principles and
constrained by policies fashioned by due democratic
processes. Accordingly, the Internet is to be considered
as a global commons and a global public good. The design
principles and policies that constitute the governance of
the Internet should must flow from such recognition of the
Internet as a commons and a public good."<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The text can of course be improved a
lot, but I thought it is good to put forward something
that the caucus can work upon...<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sunday 14 April 2013 10:28 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>The question is, what is needed to protect and strengthen the internet<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>commons?<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>As Avri points out, governments have assisted the theft of the commons.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>I would say that the form that this assistance takes ranges from lack of<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>the basic regulation that is needed to protect it to active protection<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>of certain vested interests. That is why the notion of an 'unregulated'<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>internet is so problematic and why the notion of an open and unregulated<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>internet can so easily be a contradiction in terms.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>There needs to be some basic rules that makes sure that the internet<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>remains 'open and free' in a broad sense.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>The risks, or the challenges related to this is that many governments<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>approach regulation of the internet not from the perspective of<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>protecting it as a commons, but from the perspective of enabling them to<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>exercise more control over internet content and use, and user behaviour.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>I remain convinced that one of the difficulties in internet governance<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>is that there is a conceptual/principle deficit of some kind. Not so<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>much statement of principles that affirm freedom of expression,<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>'net-neutrality', etc.. Those are good....<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>I think they real deficit is in how the internet is defined, or what<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>kind of entity we understand it to be. <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>When the management and supply of water is being regulated there are<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>also lots of contestation. For example between mines, communities who<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>live in the catchment area, communities who live downstream subject to<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>seasonal flooding, cities and commercial farms who need dams, and nature<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>conservation and reservers, where traditional seasonal flooding is often<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>essential to the survival of many species.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Policy would generally try to understand and balance all these interests<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>and will be premised on a common understanding that water is a common<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>resource. The public interest principles will be fairly easily<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>understood by most that are involved water policy and regulation. But<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>there will be lots of argument about how it is managed, and used and<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>often the wrong decisions will be made.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>I just had a glance at the CGI.br principles and the IRP 10 principles<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>and neither statement contains anything that suggests what the internet<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>- from the perspective of it being a 'commons' or a public good - is. I<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>know I have been dwelling on this ONE KEY 'principle' deficit for a<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>while... but I just can't give thinking it is at the root of the<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>difficulties we have in addressing the conflicts of interest in internet<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>governance.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Anriette<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>On 14/04/2013 02:50, Avri Doria wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>All of the Internet, like the land world before it, was once commons. Then, as before, the rich, the powerful and greedy, with the assistance of the governments they bought, and continue to buy, began to misappropriate those commons and called it property. Each day more of that commons its stolen. Each day more of the linguistic commons is stolen and called intellectual property. The Internet commons is almost gone. This its what government do best - with some very few exceptions - assist in the theft of the commons.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>I have no problem with those who create art or new Internet spaces enjoying the fruits of their creativity and inventiveness. A neologism may be owned. A new Internet space may be owned. But the language itself or the Internet should not be.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Diego Rafael Canabarro <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:diegocanabarro@gmail.com"><diegocanabarro@gmail.com></a> wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>At the International Studies Association Annual Convention last week in<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>San<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Francisco, an official from the US Department of State said: "there's<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>no<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>commons on cyberspace". That perception is closely related to the<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>conflict<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>presented by Mr. Perry bellow in this thread. I'm still struggling with<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>that assertion.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Norbert Bollow <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch"><nb@bollow.ch></a> wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>Roland Perry <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:roland@internetpolicyagency.com"><roland@internetpolicyagency.com></a> wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>One of the most significant I'm aware of (and I hope this is within<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>the remit of your question):<o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>It definitely is, and it's a conflict that I have not been<o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>sufficiently<o:p></o:p></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>conscious of, so thank you very much for pointing this out!<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Greetings,<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Norbert<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>The private sector has built extensive<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>networks [fixed and mobile] using $billons of investment on which<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>their shareholders [many of whom are the consumers' pension funds]<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>expect a return, versus many customers who feel entitled to have<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>unlimited usage for a relatively trivial monthly payment (which<o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre>they<o:p></o:p></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre>sometimes dress up as "Network Neutrality").<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>I post this not to support either of the above points of view, but<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>merely to inform readers of the conflict it unquestionably<o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre>represents.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>____________________________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>To be removed from the list, visit:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>For all other list information and functions, see:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Diego R. Canabarro<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597">http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>--<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Skype: diegocanabarro<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>--<o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>Avri Doria<o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:katitza@eff.org">katitza@eff.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:katitza@datos-personales.org">katitza@datos-personales.org</a> (personal email)
Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990</pre>
</body>
</html>